Sinn Féin - On Your Side

Sellafield a bigger threat than any maritime vessel in our waters

Speaking in the Dáil today on the Maritime Security Bill, Sinn Féin TD
for Louth, Arthur Morgan, warned against the rush to protect vessels while
possibly curtailing human and civil rights at the same time.

Deputy Morgan said:

"While I appreciate that there needs to be proper protection of vessels
and marine installations, I am not satisfied that there is some vast new
problem that requires to be addressed by a raft of new security legislation.

"Others have referred to the new dangers since the awful events in New York
and Madrid, but I would be concerned that those events are being used to
serve as the pretext for legislation that I fail to see would have
prevented either of those atrocities taking place. As Amnesty
International pointed out last year, the so-called 'War on Terror' was
being used to curtail human rights, undermine international law and increase
the level of fear and suspicion between different peoples. As with the
abuses in Iraqi prisons, the point is that while states do need to protect
themselves against threats, they do not have the right to undermine
human rights in the process.

"There are situations where people could find themselves subject to
the sanctions recommended in this Bill by their participation in legitimate
acts of protest. For example, if a group of workers were to go on strike on
an off-shore exploration platform, and that dispute was to develop into an
occupation, would such persons then be considered to be in
contravention of this section and depicted as terrorists? Would it
allow a company like Shell or Marathon to invoke this legislation in the
event of an industrial dispute off shore? Would people engaged in protest or
direct actions against ships carrying war materials or nuclear materials
come under the terms of the above? I myself have taken part in protests
against Sellafield, and Greenpeace have attempted to physically obstruct
vessels carrying noxious materials from Sellafield through the Irish Sea.
If such an action was to be successful to the extent of the protestors
boarding such a vessel and preventing it carrying its deadly cargo
further, would that be considered an act of terror?

"Some speakers in the Seanad referred to the possibility of a terrorist
attack on Sellafield and the prospects of this Bill preventing such an
occurrence. I fail to see how this Bill would prevent it. But surely this is
to miss the point of the danger that Sellafield presents. We might not
be able to prevent some lunatic deciding to crash a plane into it,
but we can and should be doing something about the danger it currently
poses. And that is to pressurise the British Government to close the place
down." ENDS